This argument seems great. But it may have a problem: It needs to consider ‘nothing’ as an object. But that seems impossible.
Why? You might delve into the pits of value ontology, which is on the road to a road that is no longer connected to reality.
It’s like an orange and apple. Rational philosopher, ultimate philosopher says. Tuesday I see an orange, get some endorphins flowing, taste buds flowing, it was yummy. Monday, I see an apple, I got a couple nueronal clusters and memories devoted to an apple. Orange gives me adrenaline, because it reminds of working out, but apples give me endorphins, because it reminds me of the farm.
Value ontology is like…the apple, which is the self object valuation of the realizer, Is in turn its own valuation, a valuation of the valutation, which in terms, pits the apple against orange, according to the self-valuation of both the apple and its observer.
It is too vague and generalised a question to give a single definitive answer
Humans are better than animals in some respects but not all
Reply “Ultimate Philosophy 1001” (I cannot quote for more than three quotes):
Well, I am not sure what your “value ontology” means. But I am really interested in ontology. If value ontology means seeking value in a sense of ontology, then it is what I want.
Ontology is not unreality. Instead, perhaps it is the ultimate reality because it discusses being itself. Anyway, I like ontological value.
value ontology is not my child.
value means a volume of quantity, or a degree of luminescence.
So when we value something, we refer to “How bright is it in our mind, how much do we cherish it.” Any other meaning is word babble and probably pretentious.
Not every thing has value but it is a subjective term and so therefore
agreeing to what does and does not have value is not always possible
Seriously?
Have you absolutely no idea of what “value” actually means?
Please explain what you understand intrinsic value to be, and its relationship to existence, then.
I’mnot sure if I’m missing something, but I just see you restating things. I’m still having trouble understanding why I’m not going to the gym based on my choice to strengthen myself. Or if so, why that’s nihilist.
His inquiry is normal and reasonable. Your response is not productive.
‘Nothing’ is not an object - it is the absence of a thing. It can be used as the baseline for establishing value.
It’s common to use such concepts: ‘Quiet’ is not sound, it’s the absence of sound. ‘Black’ is not light, it’s the absence of light.
Is there sound? Is there light? The answer is the result of a comparison to the baseline, which is the absence of sound or light.
So quiet is less valuable than noise?
Hmm… Quiet is not a sound eh?
I was having the damnedest time finding Beethoven’s composition signature back when I was 16…
I was just using piano at the time, and I realized that I needed to add an 89th key for the project.
The 89th key was the spaces between the notes…
This is to say, silence not only exists, it is a variable
Intrinsic value has to be separate from anything that anyone wants. It’s value which is not derived from goals or desire of any individual or group. That eliminates all possible sources of value except existence of an object in itself.
Why consider that as an intrinsic value?
If an object has no value than it has the same value as ‘nothing’. A universe that exists would have the same value as a non-existent universe. Yet, the existence of the universe and all the parts, all the objects within, are the basis for everything. It’s the foundation and material on which everything else is built. It seems ridiculous to say that it has no value or that it has the same value as nothingness.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to think that any object has some value simply because it exists.
My response was an answer to the idea that ‘nothing’ had to be a ‘thing’. It was not a statement about the value of sound.
“value means a volume of quantity, or a degree of luminescence.
So when we value something, we refer to “How bright is it in our mind, how much do we cherish it.” Any other meaning is word babble and probably pretentious.”
Furthermore, to ask which is more valuable, a music note or silence, depends on what time and mood the question is asked.
If the person is in a party mood, she may say the music note is more valuable. If she is in a resting mood, she may say the silence is more valuable.
If everything has value and at the same time it’s all subjective then taking this sentence at face value would mean that everything is equally valuable.
And that in turn can be used as a comforting thought for all those who fail in their aspirations or are too tired to have (m)any in the first place.
It is soothing and promotes acquiescence.
But it’s more than that. Because it changes the thinking of what value actually means.
Instead of judging the value of something in relation to a given goal or desired outcome it becomes about personal validation and social validation - How I feel about myself, how valuable I think of myself and this in relation to others.
How do I improve my social value, what is my social value, and so on.
Value oncology - The narcissism pyramid scheme.
So it is a value that isn’t value to anyone. I just don’t understand what that is, though; it’s clearly not the same as what we call “intrinsic value”, and only seems to share a name. I think it’s more likely that it’s a meaningless word in that context.
If value is an objective measurable physical property, like mass, then that’s true. It doesn’t mean that a valueless object is the same as a non-existent object, of course.
If it’s an abstraction that we ascribe to things, then it doesn’t necessarily follow, I don’t think. I don’t think we can substitute “charm” or “beauty” for value in your statement.
It has a lot more value to you or to me. That sounds instrumental, though.
Alternatively: the fact that existence makes value possible doesn’t make existence valuable.
Alternatively: existence is a logical abstraction used to denote concepts with a referent. It is not a predicate of objects; you can’t make much meaning of a logical notation saying (for all objects) [v] > ~(for all objects) [v].
It seems like value and existence are one, then. In which case, it’s certainly not what people mean when they say “valuable”, but what they mean when they say “existent”.
Or do some existent things have more or less intrinsic value than others?
I don’t think that everything is subjective. I don’t that everything is equally intrinsically valuable. My intuition is that a human being who is able to self-propel, think and act is more intrinsically valuable than a rock which is cannot do those things.
Depends on many factors. What kind of rock is it? If it’s a common rock, the self-propelling human has more rarity.
The self-propelling human has more Utility (greater ability to harvest life-giving-resources.)
Value is subjective. A girl may like the smooth rock more, rock may be a little bit rare, and she may not like the sound of the self-propelling human’s engine.
Rarity=objective
Utility(ability to harvest life-bearing-resources)=objective
Value=subjective